Have private schools changed

[ilkleymoorbartat]

I went to a super selective all girls private school in central London around 20 years ago. Most parents were doctors or lawyers, but there was a lot of parents from many different backgrounds too. It was a pretty low key experience all in all. Obviously there were some super rich kids there, but I'd say the vast majority weren't. The thing that stands out now from reading these boards, is how intense the private school experience is now.

Multiple music lessons, sports teams on Saturdays, super intense homework session. Non of this really happened when I went. Again, obviously kids worked hard etc, but it sounds so much more pressurised and these days

It depends on the school and the child. Remember each child of a parent on here won’t do everything discussed, or even half of it. Some schools have always been pressured like this.
Personally I did extracurruculars at my state school 20 years ago. I know a few kids who did at least two instruments plus stsgrcoach. Mostly they got to uni and burned out.

Stagecoach. Typing while breastfeeding. 🤦‍♀️

I’d say the biggest change is the pastoral provision. Honestly 25 years ago when I left I don’t think anyone cared that much about our well-being unless we had major issues. Now it is the major thing they talk to us about. They also are much more careful about the homework they give so rather than the 2 hours a night I had from year 7, it is only 30 mins to an hour if that. Most parents at my kids schools are working professionals similar to my friend’s parents. Perhaps a few more super rich but most of the kids don’t care and never notice. There is a lot more sport now and way more organised. I had maybe 2 sports teachers who did everything (incl driving the mini bus!) but now many schools have many more teams and many more sports on offer. So many clubs now which didn’t exist 25 years ago (we tried but the head said no!). Ultimately it isn’t radically different apart from that the facilities have been majorly upgraded.

I’d say there are still parents from a range of backgrounds - the common denominator being that they can come up with the 20K a year needed for fees so maybe less doctors than before (at least less NHS doctors) but plenty of city lawyers.

But probably the biggest change is the intense competition for places. That in itself will ensure a much higher work ethic that would have been previously. Everyone who gets in is either super bright or has worked super hard or both. These are kids who are used to being competitive and have a fairly intense pace of life anyway so school life is just reflecting that.

I've just put my 2 through private school and it was rather different to my experience at a school that topped the league tables. We had quite a bit of homework and it all needed to be handed in the next day but it was quite normal to have a lot of extra curriculars (I played 4 instruments, 2 orchestras, school and out of school choir, windband, guides, out of school drama group, swimming club and supra curricula activities) and lots of my friends were equally busy.

DC were put under huge amounts of pressure to drop all extra curricular activities. One wanted to be a musician but was still being told to drop her instruments........ I do think though (dons hard hat) that the standard of teaching my DC had was far lower than that I enjoyed quite probably beacuse if you didn't want to go into medicine, law or the civil service there were realtively few other opportunities for very clever female graduates of my mother's generation.

That's interesting @londonmummy1966 what do you mean about the standard of teaching?

Also, @LivesinLondon2000 wht is there so much more competition now? Seems strange given that costs seem more out of reach than ever!

@ilkleymoorbartat
just population increase. The population of London has increased by nearly 2 million in the last 20 years. Lots of immigration, many of them wealthy and working in the city etc. Though Brexit and the current economy crisis might reverse things over time I guess

Grand daughter is at a top private school and encouraged to take part in loads of extra curricular activities. Water polo, cross country, gymnastics and fencing and she plays flute in the orchestra. The Pastoral care is exceptionally good. The school is more ethnically diverse than the comp at the bottom of our road. Her father (DS) was at a private school which focussed on developing the whole person as well as achieving high results. They even awarded a prize in yr 8 to the boy who had contributed most to the school.In other words, you have to pick the school which meets your requirements.

I wonder if some kids at private school are being encouraged to drop extra-curricular activities because they are no longer considered important for university entrance in particular for Oxbridge and Russell Group unis.
It seems to be just about demonstrating subject knowledge beyond what’s covered at A level and no advantage to being at a high level in sport or music anymore (those things were a definite advantage when I applied 30+ years ago and given 2 equally qualified candidates might have given you the edge).
All the kids I know currently at private schools near me are still heavily involved in extra-curricular stuff but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were discouraged at A level for that reason.

Depends on the school.
Both dcs through secondary private and it was very similar to your experience.

@LivesinLondon2000 it hasnt been my experience, quite the opposite.
Tge school seem to be very proud if the sports achievement of the pupils. Neither dcs have had any issue taking time off to compete either.

I'd say some things have changed since I was at private school 30-odd years ago and some things haven't. Back then we school on Saturdays, now it's just matches on Sat mornings, but if the school is boarding I'm sure there is more on at weekends (mine are at day schools).

Back then we all played instruments, sang in the choir, did drama and debating, DofE and lots of games - that's the same now and there is an expectation that you continue to do all that in addition to the academic load.

Academically, things are MUCH more competitive, but isn't it at state schools too? I got into a top uni with BBC in my A levels, back in the early 90s. That same uni/course now they want AAB. So DC now have to work much harder and are under a lot more pressure to achieve what we did much more easily.

As for the parents/families - there a lot of very wealthy ones and they're a lot less British/middle class. Lots of wealthy foreign families and a very mixed demographic in terms of parents' jobs and backgrounds. Like you OP my old school was full of the DC of doctors, solicitors, accountants - now let's just say it's very different!

My daughter's experience of private education is very much like yours OP. But she's not at any famous boarding school, so I expect the level of pressure and expectations differs between the schools - depending of how famous/fancy they are.

It’s not just private schools, though it is definitely worse there (and one of many factors that made us send DS to a state primary where some parents are pushy, but most are pretty normal).

I would call it “East Dulwich Mum Syndrome”. Tutoring practically from birth (I do indeed know at least one parent who paid for tutoring for their 3 year old for the Alleyns reception interview).

No activity can be done for fun, all has to be competitive (swimming has to be in a squad, must play minimum 3 instruments to be eligible for the Kingsdale music scholarships, etc).

Utter madness.

The instrument thing can be a bit crazy. How much croaky violins 🎻 can school admission staff take? 🫣Some kids are talented musicians of course, but most just do it to tick a box

Not sure there'd be that many croaky violins at 11+ music scholarship auditions - they usually start with a minimum expectation of Grade 5 in your first instrument and Grade 3 in your second and escalate from there. DD had a friend who had Grade 8 with distinction when she applied for a music scholarship at 11+ and assumed she'd be the best in the year - only to discover that the other music scholar in the year already had the Licentiate diploma.

@londonmummy1966 I’m not a musician! So I looked up the Licentiate diploma. It seems to be a post grad diploma? Are you sure a 10 year old had this? Mind blown.

@maranella re standards in A levels getting higher. grade inflation also comes into play. It is real. there is a useful page on Wikipedia charting the changes in a level grades over the years, relative numbers getting the various grades. Eg I went to Oxford on AABB in 1990. Red bricks asked for BCD or CCC in my subject. Not happening today. those same red bricks now ask for AAB, if not AAA… in my day, far fewer students got an A, hence my two As and two Bs were enough for oxbridge (tho my sister got AAAA and didn’t secure a place, so it was also no doubt down to me getting lucky and having a great interview).

Yes absolutely - when it was introduced it was a post grad diploma but nowadays most DC going to conservatoire have it - DC1 was at a specialist music school where most of them had it by 14 although 10 is young (and that child was HK Chinese which has a bearing as they start them in nappies).

I agree re grade inflation - this graph is quite compelling

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10794867

@Academeo that graph makes me feel a lot better about my BBC! 1992 was a particularly harshly graded year too, from the looks of it

But yes, grade inflation is nuts. Who exactly does it benefit too? I don't understand it. All that's happened is that more pressure has been piled on students and an A grade is no longer that impressive, so they had to bring in an A*.

I think one of the things that has changed is London private schools rather than all of them.

Friend of mine was putting her daughter through the entrance exams for competitive S London schools at the same time as DD was doing tests for two schools in the West Country. The system seemed insane, hyper competitive and frankly off-putting.

Meanwhile in the sticks, it was much more relaxed, more about a good fit for the child than a political juggling of places according to which schools are seen as better, and quite a few kids moved around in Yr 7 and 8 if they didn't find the school right for them.

DD is in a school which gets good results but has the air of a well-funded grammar rather than a university campus. Plenty of people do music and sport, but it's also OK to loaf around. DD firmly in that camp.

@mdh2020 which school are you referring to? Please dm me if you don’t want to share publicly. We are still in the process of choosing a school.

social media have made it all very competitive. My DCs are at top selective London schools and never get any pressure to do any extracurriculars. I don't share my Dcs activities on SM at all, much like the old days when our parents never bragged about what we did. Friends of mine love posting relentlessly what their children do. That is the difference, not the schools nor the education.

The short answer is yes. Private schools now want you to be amazing at something.

It can be a bit much. You have to excel it seems at something, sport, art, music, academics, drama.

You can't just exist.

There's such a big variation from one private school to the next so you can't generalise across all of them. A highly selective boarding school in London with 40k fees is not going to be the same as a private school in Newcastle with 10k fees.
Also, I think it's across education as a whole that expectations, standards and pressures have increased, compared to the 90s and 00s. This has happened in state schools too, it's not unique to private schools - although probably more intense!
Society as a whole has got more competitive too with everyone knowing what everyone else's kids are doing and achieving because of social media.

For context- I went (paid for by a full academic scholarship)to one of the ‘best’ academic private schools in the UK. I am married to a man who went to a failing comprehensive. I have siblings who went to major public schools, and will send their kids to the same ones. I also have siblings who send their children to average state schools. We have 4 children, and will not send them to independent schools. I am also a Secondary school teacher (in the state sector) and have taught in grammars and private schools.
Several posters on this thread state categorically that ‘abolishing private schooling would have no impact on the state sector’.
Whilst it would not remove all socio cultural and economic inequality, I think it is unlikely it would have no impact.
It seems pretty obvious that if your child attends a state school ( ie part of a nationally funded system), you will care more about that system, and do your best to support it. No one is suggesting that inequality would disappear. Noone is saying you should not want the best for your children, and use all your resources to help them achieve and enjoy life. It is pretty difficult to argue that elistist /selective institutions do not perpetuate a system where very narrow subsections of society intermingle primarily based on financial privilege. That is not a desirable basis on which to organise education, since education should be about much more than ensuring the financially privileged retain social captital and benefits for their own kind.
A couple of examples. Yes, people could still pay for tutors. But to say that having those children who are tutored in mainstream classrooms would make ‘no difference’ to the system isn’t convincing. Anyone who has taught, will know that a class dynamic in which bright /engaged children contribute makes a world of difference to outcomes across the board. (Which absolutely is not to say there are not bright engaged kids at state school already !)
2) Parents who are prepared to pay for school and have reaources to do so, would necessarily have more interest in, and incentive to financially and otherwise support and lobby for Government provision for State education. If education is a priority for families, their own skill sets and social capital would benefit a wider range of children (even given the catchment inequality factor) Most importantly, both weathly and less financially well off children would be exposed to a wider section of society. The private system diverts resources of all kinds - teaching /money /facilities from society. It is not a naive ‘lefty’ assertion, but common sense to see there would be a big imact for the better on state education.
In my opinion, there would also be benefits at large for the children who would otherwise have gone private !